THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES, PROCEDURES AND THE RIGHTS OF PARLIAMENT
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, May 16, 2022
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met with video conference this day at 11:06 a.m. [ET], pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), to consider possible amendments to the Rules, and to consider a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Diane Bellemare (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome to this meeting.
I am Diane Bellemare, a senator from Quebec. Today, the members of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament will continue their discussion on creating two new committees.
I would first like to introduce the senators participating in the meeting: Deputy Chair of the Committee, Senator Frances Lankin from Ontario, and Deputy Chair Denise Batters from Saskatchewan.
I would ask the committee members who are present to introduce themselves, starting with the senators from the Maritime provinces and ending with those from the West.
[English]
Senator Wells: I don’t think you can get much further east. I am Senator David Wells from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Cordy: Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: Pierrette Ringuette from New Brunswick.
Senator Mockler: Percy Mockler from New Brunswick.
The Chair: Diane Bellemare from Quebec.
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson from Quebec.
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
Senator Housakos: Leo Housakos from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Black: Rob Black, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario.
Senator Batters: Denise Batters, Saskatchewan.
Senator Busson: Bev Busson, British Columbia.
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, Yukon.
[Translation]
The Chair: We are hearing today from Senator Omidvar from Ontario, Senator Dawson from Quebec, as well as Senator Housakos also from Quebec, who is a member of this committee, but is here today as a witness concerning the creation of two new committees.
We invited these senators to share their experience concerning the mandate of the two committees they chaired or are currently chairing. Those are the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology and the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
In both cases, the mandates are very broad, and we must examine the proposal to create two new committees that would incorporate part of those two committees’ mandates.
We will talk about creating a committee on human resources that would focus on issues related to human resources, development and labour, whose mandate belongs to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. We will also talk about creating a committee on science, technology, innovation and communications, which would take part of the Transport Committee’s mandate and also part of the Social Affairs Committee’s mandate.
I propose to each of our witnesses to take turns making brief comments. We will then open up the discussion with members of those committees. We can begin with Senator Dawson on the topic of transport and communications.
Hon. Dennis Dawson: I congratulate the committee. I think that you have important work ahead of you and that the objective of improving committee restructuring is justified. As we want to lighten the burden of the chair of the Transport Committee, Senator Housakos, I agree with you on removing communications from the Transport Committee’s mandate, but that means its mandate will be much lighter.
Over the past few years, we have had the mandate to study telecommunications at CRTC and CBC. For instance, I am thinking of the month when we examined Bill C-11, a bill on telecommunications. If the Transport Committee was not given those mandates, the committee would have much less to do. I don’t think the existence of that committee would be justified if its work was so limited.
[English]
In your future deliberations, since you’re going to be going further with this, if you take telecommunications out of Transport you’ll have to find something else for Transport. I’ve been on the committee for 17 years, more or less. Without telecom, we would have been a very light committee, given the studies on CBC, debates on telecommunications and, like I mentioned in French, Bill C-11 that will be coming to us in the next few weeks.
You are taking it away, and I agree with that because there was always a problem between the content and the container. You had issues where telecom had the CRTC on one side and Heritage Canada on the other. Sometimes Heritage Canada debates would go to Social because they were more cultural in nature, but with some of them it was hard to make the difference between the content and the container. Again coming back to Bill C-11, it is a telecom bill, but basically it’s about Canadian culture and protecting the interests of Canadian artists. I’m just putting those on the table.
That being said, I’m encouraging you to take telecom and put it with industry. I think it will be a more logical choice, but again, with the proviso that you find something for my friend Leo to do.
The Chair: Thank you.
I think this would be a good idea to hear from the actual chair of Transport and Communications, so I invite Leo Housakos to make his introductory remarks. You can speak on the creation of both committees, if you want. At the end, if Senator Dawson wants to add anything on the creation of a human capital committee, he could do so.
Hon. Leo Housakos: Thank you, chair, and thank you, colleagues. I don’t have any particularly strong views either way, and I certainly don’t disagree with any of what Senator Dawson has also put forward from the perspective of Transport and Communications, because God knows he’s chaired that committee for a very long time himself.
I just want to talk generally about the structure of our committees. I’ve chaired a number of committees in the Senate, as everybody knows. I’ve done Internal Economy, Transport and Foreign Affairs. I’ve chaired this committee. I’m on Selection. I’ve served on Agriculture. I’ve seen them all. My concern right now is that at this juncture of what we’re facing in recreating committees, we have to be very careful, because we have to take into consideration the fact that in terms of resources, we’re already stretched to the limit as we continue to work in this hybrid, virtual fashion. We’ve seen that we have not been able to meet on a regular basis with the existing committees we have, so we have to be careful when we add new committees, if it’s the intention to create extra ones.
If the intention is to restructure them, then, of course, there’s no perfect setting. There’s no perfect structure. At the end of the day, one can make the argument that telecommunications can go with industry or science and technology, but Social, for example, I understand has been overloaded, because for some reason it’s the go-to committee in the Senate, and always has been. Whenever leadership has a hard time determining where to send a bill, they second it to Social, so it’s become a natural landing pad.
From my point of view, most committees, outside of maybe Social, have not been overwhelmed by work, not even during COVID but certainly not even before COVID. At the end of the day, the primary role of every committee is to make sure they’re dealing with government legislation. The secondary role, of course, is to initiate and conduct Senate studies, which, of course, we’re very well known for. Third, of course, is inquiries into issues of public interest.
Now, in my time in the Senate in the last decade plus, I’ve never seen any one of those three elements being contravened or not respected. I have never seen a bottleneck in any one of our committees. Social, like I said, has had a little bit more than others to get the work out, but we’ve always hit the target of making sure government legislation is dealt with and that our studies have been done in a timely order. Again, unless somebody can bring to my attention a public inquiry or a public urgency that required attention by any one of our Senate committees that was not met, then I would say we have something to address.
Those are really the things that I wanted to share. In terms of Transport and Communications, I will highlight and stress that Senator Dawson is absolutely right, and I also want to stress that both these elements, transport and communication, have not been overloaded with requests and work per se. I’d be more than happy to answer any questions or debate the issue, but those are the thoughts I wanted to share with everybody today.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Housakos.
[English]
Hon. Ratna Omidvar: Thank you for inviting me to this meeting.
I welcome this discussion on SOCI in particular. I’ve only been chair for a relatively short time, but I have been a member of the committee for many years. In a nutshell, I will conclude by saying that the work and the mandate of the committee are compromised because its mandate is overbroad and overreaches into so many aspects of life that we are unable to do more than what is our primary mandate, which is to prepare reports on government business.
Please don’t misunderstand me: The committee is more than willing to roll up its sleeves and get to work, and we have always managed to get our reports in on time, but, just as I look out into the future, whether we’re in hybrid or non-hybrid mode, the committee will continue to get significant pieces of government legislation. When I look at the mandate letters, we can reasonably expect legislation on dental care, more legislation on childcare, possibly EI reform, definitely housing and a new Canadian disabilities act. What may be somewhat new or newer since I arrived is that this committee is also getting a significant number of Senate bills and bills that are generated from members of the House of Commons and come to us as private bills.
There are a number of serious outcomes for you to consider. The first one has been cited again and again in your own deliberations, I think, which is that studies are the first victims. I don’t need to underline to you, because many of you have been senators for way longer than I have, that studies really are a significant contribution of committees, and they fall victim to time management. Frankly, in this Parliament, SOCI hasn’t even had time to have an organizational meeting to discuss the studies that have been proposed to us, let alone embark on them. That is a serious issue. There are so many significant matters of study that have been referred to us, and committee members have their own ideas for studies, and we simply cannot get to them at this point.
The next victim is science and technology. Science in its general form, including basic science, has been very rarely studied at committee. We have pursued artificial intelligence, for instance, in the context of health care and prescription pharmaceuticals, but the last study that SOCI did on pure science was in 2008. It was called Mobilizing Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage. Since then, we have not had the time to look at technological developments that have the power to change all our lives.
I think we all know that development, especially technological development, is not always benign, so it is important to study matters related, let’s say, to robotics, genome technology or artificial intelligence. I think that is a concern and could be dealt with by your proposals to create two new committees. I believe that science and technology are better served if they are in a place of their own, but that Social Affairs continue to deal with matters of social affairs and health, and possibly even calling it health and social affairs.
I just want to make the point that whatever you do, there’s never going to be entire purity, because when you deal with health, you are perforce dealing with technology, so there’s going to be some overlapping. I don’t think it’s possible, nor is it desirable, to be completely exact and precise.
I also want to very briefly comment on your proposal to have a new committee dedicated to human capital. I think this is very important, for obvious reasons, because of our economy, because of our labour market needs. Again, here, labour market needs would be impacted by the development of artificial intelligence and robotics, so there will be a little bit of criss-cross, as I would call it. The point I really wanted to make was that this committee could very ably turn its eyes to the whole issue of immigration for the labour market and how that should be constructed. However, there are other areas of immigration that need to stay in Social Affairs, and those would be matters related to social inclusion, social cohesion, the rights of immigrants, citizenship, refugees, et cetera. I just wanted to quickly make that point before answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Omidvar, for those remarks. I think you’re completely right to say there will always be overlap between team and topics, but each committee is taking a different lens in studying the same subject, and that’s the essence of it.
Senator Ringuette: This is an interesting conversation for my part.
I have a question for Senators Dawson and Housakos. Both of you said that issues of telecom could be sent to industry, but we don’t have an industry committee. I do understand, and I’ve noticed over the years that Transport and Communications is not the busiest committee that we have.
For many years, I’ve been advocating for a human capital committee, and I think that would relieve quite a lot from the social mandate. Ratna, you said earlier that there’s a great need to review the EI system, and we’re in a labour crisis. We should have had that committee many years ago, but anyway, we are where we are.
I don’t disagree with the fact that we should be concerned about adding new committees, and I strongly believe that it is time to have a major review of the mandates of our committees to be more focused on the actual issues and more in line with how the different government departments are structured.
I go back to my question to Senators Dawson and Housakos in regard to Transport and Communications. Both of you have said it should be referred to an industry committee, which we don’t have, so what is the answer to all of this?
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much. You identified an important point. We don’t have a committee that is specifically concerned with the economy. We have the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce, which focuses on economy in general, but it is still more specifically focused on financial institutions.
[English]
Senator Duncan: Good morning, everyone.
My question is focused on Senator Dawson and Senator Housakos. When I first arrived in the Senate and became more familiar with the Senate studies — I found most Canadians are not familiar — it was 2019. The Transport and Communications study on electric vehicles, which was dated at that time, was so well received when I came back from Ottawa in 2019 and started distributing that particular study. Very average Canadians that I spoke with were very interested, as were others — industry, government.
My point is that there are a number of issues that Transport and Communications has not studied recently, of course, and perhaps it’s because they haven’t been referred to them. I’m thinking of the airline industry, for example, and the digital divide that exists in our country.
I see an enormous challenge in transport between the North and South and tremendous challenges in front of our airline industry, which were touched on by Senator Wetston in his study. We’ve had the airline industry before our National Finance Committee. Really, the issues of service to rural and the non-major centres are a major issue for Canadians. We’ve all read the stories of the $10,000 flights between Nunavut and Yellowknife and Iqaluit and Yellowknife. With the digital divide, I believe we’re losing a generation. And it’s not just about access; it’s about information.
My point is, I believe there are significant issues in front of Transport and Communications, and I’d like to hear them and see them addressed in the future. I think there’s lots of work to be done. At the same time, I also believe that the human capital issues that have been raised by Senator Ringuette are very important. Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Duncan.
I will give the floor to Senators Dawson and Housakos to respond to the issues that were just raised.
[English]
Senator Dawson: Senator Duncan, we did a study on digital divide, but it was many years ago. It would have to be updated, I agree. Senator Housakos and I had the opportunity to meet with people basically when we went to see countries that were definitely ahead of us, Estonia being the best example, where it was quite embarrassing to go to Estonia and see that every student in school had abilities on computers. Anyway, yes, I agree it’s an important study and it should be done.
That being said, I want to comment on Senator Ringuette’s comment about industry. You’re right that there is no industry but there is a committee that would be called science, technology and communications. My misinterpretation was that that was the industry committee that would be dealing with issues that were normally being studied by the telecom side of Transport and Telecommunications.
As far as the airline industry, we did a major study that I would refer to you on airports. It was on airports but it dealt with two studies. One was on the fact that there were 26 national airports, but also that there was an airport divide — One size doesn’t fit all was the name of the study — where we tried to apply to the North rules that were developed for airports in urban centres and they just did not apply, a case in point being that if you had to lengthen the landing of airports, in Iqaluit, if you made it any longer, it would be in what was formerly called Frobisher Bay. Some of those applications should not be applied to northern airports.
Again, we deserve to put a lot of study these days on airlines because what happened during the last two years has put all of the small airports — and the smaller of the small airlines — in jeopardy. They need support, and we would be best qualified to make that study.
Senator Housakos: Senator Duncan, you have brought up great points.
Senator Dawson is right. We did do a study not too long ago, but it was a while ago unfortunately. I thought it was a great study on digital. The real issue is, of course, we’ve now had two governments that ignored the study and ignored the recommendations. Maybe what we should do is republish the study and somehow find a way to get governments to sit down and read them.
On the second issue, we have a decision to make here. I agree there is a structural issue that doesn’t make sense. You have to have a committee that deals with industry, science, technology and communication. That, naturally, would be a nice fit and would have Transport dealing specifically with transportation and infrastructure issues. Social would be focusing on social, labour, human resources and so on and so forth. Again, that would be logical.
As in my introduction, the only thing I want to highlight is that, given resources, context and the challenges we currently have, that might be problematic as we realized a number of special committees, subcommittees that have been formed, informal committees over the last couple of years, have not been getting the capacity to do their work either, again because of a lack of resources.
Thank you, colleagues.
Senator Busson: I wanted to ask both Senator Dawson and Senator Housakos for their views, given their extensive experience on different committees, of the proposal with regard to human resources and human capital. Senator Omidvar expressed quite aptly her views around how that might be best used as a new committee. I wanted to get the views of Senator Dawson and Senator Housakos on the human resource/human capital proposed committee that we have been discussing, if possible. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Busson.
I will now ask Senators Dawson and Housakos to speak to this point.
[English]
Senator Dawson: Briefly, again here I join Senator Housakos in the fact that I am on CIBA and we have enormous debates about resources and what we can do. We have a lot of difficulty answering the requests we have now from the existing committees we have. As he said, we also create special committees. Even though I agree with getting telecom in with technology, I think we should be doing a better job at what we’re doing now before we start creating two new committees.
That said, with human resources, the unemployment insurance or preparing manpower, as Senator Ringuette said, the fact is that we need workers and we did not address that issue when it was time to address it. Had we had a committee, we might have done it.
Always remember, we lost two years. Whether we like it or not, the two years of COVID basically derailed all of the work that was being done. We had studies that had been started. We had started one on telecommunications before COVID arrived but we never got to do it because we didn’t have any committees to deal with it during those two years.
Senator Housakos: COVID aside, colleagues, scheduling was an issue pre-COVID. Getting our existing committees within a time frame where it could be convenient, taking into consideration travel, sitting sessions and all the rest of it has always been a challenge. Whatever this committee decides, we need to go back to Internal Economy and see that it makes sense.
To your question, Senator Busson, I agree. I agree with Senator Omidvar. Social Affairs is busy enough with all of the social affairs issues that she highlighted. It should be a stand-alone. It’s something that many of us who have been around for a long time recognize. It hasn’t happened for logistical reasons.
Science and technology would make more sense if they were with communications rather than social affairs, but, again, it was done many years ago in order to spread the work. You have certain times where certain committees will be busier than others. Certainly, Social Affairs over the last decade has been incredibly busy.
The Chair: I can’t help but say that perhaps in this case, when some committees don’t have too much work to do, maybe we should be more flexible and give some time in terms of hours to new committees. There is the reorganization and items such as resources, but perhaps an answer can be found when thinking about sittings and hours allocated in a week to committees. Maybe some committees could have one spot allocated instead of two.
Senator Batters: As I listen to this conversation, it seems to me that what we really need is an overall, very comprehensive look at these rather than just simply adding two new committees.
As we’ve heard from two very experienced colleagues who have both chaired and also been on Transport and Communications for quite some time, it sounds like that committee, if you leave it to transport alone, could then be quite a light committee, as Senator Dawson said. Having a proper mix is very important.
A couple of other things: In addition to COVID — yes, I agree, it’s basically taken two years from us — we’ve also had two elections in the last three years. After both those elections, it took a considerable amount of time to get committees restarted, and that took time away.
I’ve been on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for many years. After the 2015 election, we actually did a very lengthy study on court delay because we knew we had the time to do it. There wouldn’t likely be government legislation coming to us for quite some time after a new government was formed, so we took the time to do that. In the last couple of elections, we really haven’t had the time to be able to do that, as we have before.
Something else I was thinking is that it would be interesting to see what the actual stats are for these two committees that we are discussing, SOCI and Transport and Communications, to see what the statistics have been for the last several years about how much time of theirs has been taken with government business, private members’ bills — MPs and senators — and studies. Part of the reason that there have been fewer studies done in the last few years, even pre-COVID, has been many more private members’ bills, especially from senators. It actually used to be quite uncommon that a senator would bring forward a private member’s bill, and now it’s quite common.
I have a couple of questions to Senator Housakos because you’ve not only been chair of this committee for quite a while but you have also served as a member of that committee for quite some time. I’m wondering if it has been the case that the Transport Committee has received only a small number of private bills during that lengthy time.
Senator Housakos: To my recollection, no, we haven’t been receiving a lot of government bills or private member’s bills over the last little while. If I’m wrong, Dennis, please correct me. I don’t think we have.
Senator Dawson: First of all, I’ll come back to Bill C-10 and Bill C-11. On the telecommunications side, we’ve had a few, but we’re certainly not overwhelmed.
I’ve been here long enough to know that we have more private member’s bills on the Order Paper today than in the first five years I was in the Senate. There are a lot of requests, but they’re not going all over the place. They’re being targeted to certain committees that are already overwhelmed, and they certainly can’t do a study if they’re dealing with private member’s bills and government bills.
There is a workload distribution problem. I think that would be solved not only by changing the mandates of committees, but, again, I suggest an overhaul of the whole decision-making process on what goes where and how often. I repeat the fact that we have more private members’ bills than we’ve ever had in 20 years in the Senate.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Also, I was wondering, Senator Housakos, what do you think about the current mix of having both transport and communications in the same committee? Have you found that to be problematic, or have you found that, despite the differences, it has generally worked well, subject-matter-wise?
Senator Housakos: I don’t think it’s been problematic. Obviously, we’ve had a tradition in the committee where we would study a transport issue in one instance and then it was a communication’s turn. We have sort of alternated them since I got to that committee way back in 2009. Again, back to Senator Dawson’s point, we haven’t been overwhelmed. There have been a number of pressing issues, and we’ve dealt with them over the decades. Thus far, there doesn’t seem to be a problem.
At the end of the day, the Senate is a very multi-dimensional place. Senators, on a regular basis, deal from moment to moment with different issues. One moment you’re dealing with human affairs, the next minute you’re dealing with a supply bill, the next minute you’re dealing with infrastructure, and the next minute you’re dealing with autism. That is the nature of what we do. I don’t think that is much different on Transport and Communications than it is on Energy and the Environment or on Social Affairs and Technology.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Omidvar: To answer Senator Batters’ question, putting it in the context of SOCI, I will tell you we are overwhelmed. In this short period since we’ve been back in the new Parliament, almost from the get-go, we’ve had government legislation: the sickness benefits for COVID, the increase to the OAS. We’ve done pre-studies. We are looking at significant sections of the BIA. We have Bill S-6. We are awaiting, as we said, dental care, EI reform, employment equity, what have you.
What you have to look at is not what you’ve been able to do but what has been left aside on the road because you have not been able to do it. I can point to the desire of the committee, for many years, to complete a study on mental health and youth. We had a couple of meetings and then Parliament was prorogued. We have not done an immigration study in eons. Senator Eggleton led a study on multiculturalism in 2010, I think, and that’s not the same as immigration. There’s a great deal of interest on the inequality side. I think you have to measure the effectiveness of Senate committees based on what we have had to leave on the side of the road.
Senator Lankin: I thank the Senate colleagues who are witnesses today.
It’s like a Rubik’s cube. Every move we make creates a ripple someplace else. We have to know that and accept that.
I’m trying to come back to the root of the problem here. On a high level, on a broad level across the Senate, everyone will say we need to do a large study and look at the committees wholesale in terms of what changes may need to be made. I’m not sure that the stick-to-it-iveness is there for doing that. We have done several versions of this. There were subcommittees, and there were informal committees. There’s been a lot of effort put into either stopping a wholesale review or promoting a wholesale review, but one way or the other, it’s not getting done.
When I look at the issue that caused Rules to say we’re going to do three steps here, and the second step is what we’re doing with these two committees but we’re going to come for the larger review, I think it was in realization that it is hard to step down from that bigger role and road and that it will take a considerable effort to keep us focused on that and to make gains against that goal.
The biggest problem I see is actually not Transportation and Communications but SOCI. It is twofold. First, there is a lack of coherence in today’s world of communications which, not exclusively but writ large, involves digital issues and the connection between that and science and technology, and there has been a lack of attention to those two things recently in the current construct. Second — and for me this is the most important — coming out of COVID, we don’t have a clear focus anywhere on what has been happening and where we’re headed with the labour market. Human resources, human capital as a country, labour market policies, job training, re-skilling for sure, “just transition” issues — there’s a huge area there.
Senator Housakos, just in terms of studies hanging around, it was three years ago that I introduced a study on the future of workers in the gig economy. Since COVID, that’s expanded, and that’s almost too narrow a view now, just the gig economy. There is work to be done.
I understand what you’re saying, but if you take communications out, that leaves Transportation light. I was interested, Senator Housakos, when you mentioned infrastructure. Has that historically been something that you’ve looked at? For example, you were very involved in talking about the Canada Infrastructure Bank when it was created. Would that be something that Transportation would have looked at as an infrastructure funding source, or would that have gone to Banking or Finance? I would be interested in that.
Also, in your experience, where have tourism issues generally been sent? I know there is a tourism-travel compartment or portion in the mandate of Transportation and Communications, but that seems to me to be a large part of the economy, which, again, post-pandemic, we have a lot to rethink and a lot of need to support people. Is that something that could be embellished, or should it be embellished?
In looking at this, is there a way for us to deal with the major problem, which is to hive off some stuff from SOCI to make a more focused attempt to look at the labour market, skills training, those kinds of issues, as well as understanding that communications, digital issues, have to be bumped up? So either science and technology comes to you guys at Transportation, or we create a new committee and we find some other things to send to Transportation. If you were trying to problem-solve that conundrum there, what would you recommend we do and look at?
Senator Housakos: I agree with everything you said, Senator Lankin, and that was actually the question I had for Senator Omidvar. It seems to me that the root of the problem here is that SOCI is very busy, not because they also have science and technology but because they are really busy dealing with all the social affairs content coming through that committee. Later on maybe Senator Omidvar can speak to that, but that seems to be the issue.
Why, for example, has infrastructure fallen under transport? It’s because a number of governments have sort of connected those two issues administratively. I know the Harper government had infrastructure under the transport ministry. I don’t recall what the Chrétien government did, but currently it’s between Transport Canada and Infrastructure Canada, for obvious reasons.
It would make a lot of sense to put science and technology and communications together, to connect those three things, which would probably make our committee busier and a natural fit. I don’t think it solves Senator Omidvar’s problem, nonetheless. There are a number of reasons why everything is sent to social. That’s the content of what we’ve been dealing with.
You asked where something like tourism would fall and about the Infrastructure Bank. I think when the Infrastructure Bank bill came to us, it went to Banking, if I’m not mistaken. It certainly didn’t go to Transport. That is a choice leadership makes in consultation and debate. It seems leadership’s go-to committees are Social and Legal. In terms of tourism, it’s one of those issues that sort of falls between the cracks. You’re right that it is a growing issue. Where would that fit? Your guess is as good as mine.
The Chair: A study of tourism also depends on the question.
I will ask Senator Omidvar if she wants to react on this topic of having things move from SOCI to Transport on the science and technology part of it.
Senator Housakos: Could she also confirm the premise that I’m making that they’re very busy not because they’re combined with those two themes or issues but because they’re overwhelmed due to the content of social issues?
Senator Omidvar: You are absolutely correct, Senator Housakos. We are overwhelmed because of the social issues and the amount of legislation coming down the pipeline to us, both government and public. We are not overwhelmed because we are getting science and technology legislation. In fact, we were quite excited that we were going to get a division of the BIA on the Criminal Code application to Canadians in lunar space. That would have been kind of neat for us to have received, but no, that’s being sent somewhere else. I’m not quite sure where.
It is the science and technology bit that is not being dealt with. Last week I was at a meeting with the Chief Science Advisor of Canada, Dr. Nemer, and she was asking me why her office had not been called to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology to provide their perspectives. Are we not doing a study on A, B, C, and D? I was quite embarrassed to say, no, and that in the time I remember, I don’t ever remember inviting the Chief Science Advisor of Canada to committee. I don’t know if we can do a study on science and technology, and I don’t think that one is in the works, but it could be given the space and the prominence. It doesn’t get space at science and technology, not because we are not willing and able to wrap our arms around it, but we just do not have the time.
I think all members of SOCI would welcome the prominence that science and technology deserves in its interplay with the labour market, with human rights, with development, with inequality, all of those things, but they can and should be centred somewhere else.
Senator Lankin: I noticed the number of times people have made reference to the fact that there are public bills either from the House of Commons or bills initiated by individual senators. Because of the interest areas of individual senators, many of them come to SOCI. I think that this is an issue Senator Massicotte has raised with us on a number of occasions, and it’s on our list at the Rules Committee to look at how we handle these kinds of bills.
For example, I don’t know the origin of the approach or the practice that has us deal with those kinds of public bills from MPs or bills introduced by senators that are not government bills so they’re public bills. I don’t know the origin of why they go before studies, for example. Is that just a practice that has evolved? Do other committees handle it differently? I know that we will be discussing whether we should be curtailing the time that goes to this or dealing with it on a lottery basis. All of that has a spillover impact as well.
I agree with those who have commented that there are a lot of these bills. I think personally that it’s a shift in the work of the Senate and it takes away the ability in a time sense to do some of this other important work, like studies. I wonder if any of the three witnesses have a comment on that.
Senator Dawson: As you know, they had that problem a few years ago in the house, and they did a lottery system.
The difference between studies and bills is that the bill has a supporter. A senator will lobby to get his or her bill sent to committee and will work for it. The studies do not promote themselves. That’s why, to a certain degree, studies have been pushed to the wayside.
Most of these bills are very good. One of these options studied many years ago was to have a private member’s bills committee because there is no specialty in private members’ bills. We’re not specialists of anything, really. We could have a committee that deals only with private member’s bills and gets them through the Senate quickly and sent to the House of Commons. They take so much time to go from point A to point B that they never make it to the House of Commons. If they don’t make it to the House of Commons, what good was it to have spent time and not having it sent to the other place? It’s very nice to have someone send out a press release saying, “My bill passed the Senate.” If it passes the Senate and dies in the House, that was a very nice effort. As well, there is the sensitivity of certain subjects. I take the subject of pornography. I hope the fact that they’re putting pressure on the government to act will push the government to act. Having said that, will the bill pass? I’m not convinced it will. But it does put pressure on government. Sorry for the long answer.
The Chair: It’s a very interesting comment.
Senator Omidvar: I think this is an important subject you must study and make recommendations on.
Senator Wells: When we first started this study, I really thought it was only about splitting social affairs, science and technology. We know now that it is a much bigger issue. I go to Senator Batters’ comment that perhaps we should look at the whole issue of committees. After a while, we’ll just get a patchwork of committees that work for our current needs but might not make the best sense for the longer term and for the stability of how we do things.
A couple of things come to mind when I look at extremely busy committees with government business or government bills. I look at Legal and Constitutional Affairs. If I were asked the question of what committee we should split because of the workload, I would have first thought of Legal and Constitutional Affairs because it deals with legal, constitutional affairs, justice, and every other bill that has an effect on the Criminal Code. I would have thought of Legal, and that is not to say that Social Affairs, Science and Technology doesn’t also get an incredible amount of work, so we might want to step back a little bit and look at the entirety of our committees, how they’re structured and what their mandates are. We’ve looked at a couple of things with respect to mandates in our last couple of meetings.
The other thing that comes to mind, which is as important, is the infrastructure and logistics of our committees, talking about space, our translation needs, the analysts, the administration and staff workloads. There is the scheduling, which we always hear about, and whether we can sit while the Senate is sitting or not and whether we sit on a Friday or a Monday. We all have conflicts. When we’re considering which committees we would like to sit on, the first thing we do is pick our favourite committee and then see what it conflicts with.
There’s a bigger question with respect to the number of committees. Senator Dawson is correct. Over the last couple of years, we’ve added committees. We have the Audit and Oversight Committee, of course. We still have the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. We have the committee now on the Emergencies Act. We had the committee sponsored by Senator Mercer on charities. There are only 105 of us and, most oftentimes, fewer than the 105. These are things that we have to consider.
The other thing, which is obvious to us all, is that there is one group or caucus in the Senate that has a lot of senators, and there are three that do not have a lot of senators, so there’s that spreading of the workload as well with respect to proportionality.
I was going to mention Senator Lankin’s year-ago email to me regarding looking at the gig economy. It seems so quaint now because we have the effects of CERB and the base-income issue that’s now on our plate.
This is not to diminish the necessity, the absolute necessity, of splitting Social Affairs, Science and Technology, but there are all these other things coming at us so quickly. I think back to the 1800s when the Transportation Committee might have looked at rail and the effect of the automobile on things, but now we’re looking at so many different things, and they all warrant study. That’s all I wanted to say. It is not really a question for our colleagues, but perhaps this is a bigger issue than we thought we would be biting off at the beginning of this particular work.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you for your comments, Senator Wells. I think they are very thoughtful. We shouldn’t forget that Senate committees have evolved fairly organically over the Senate’s history. That is why the Senate has always added committees and why attempts at downsizing have never really been successful. So it may be time to think about a more comprehensive vision and to think outside the box. It would also be a matter of determining how we could organize our work more efficiently taking into account both logistical capabilities and the number of senators.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for the comments so far this morning from colleagues and guests today. I really appreciate it. I’m listening, and I have a couple of things to say and a question or two.
Senator Lankin commented earlier that there has been, in different buckets and pockets, a lot of work and thinking put into this thus far. Absolutely. That work, in my mind, is trying to clarify the function, the structure and our impact.
For function, what are we willing to do to disrupt the committees as we know them now, with an emphasis on two particular areas? What are we willing to say goodbye to? How are we addressing the needs of society and, therefore, the Senate in our functions and in our committee names and in mandates and those kinds of pieces?
For the structure, there are all kinds of symptoms and dominoes, as Senator Batters said, resulting from the decisions that we make, but now is the time to ask what a committee looks like in the Senate, what can it look like and what are we willing to do to make it work well. That does not necessarily mean all the committees will have the same purposes; there might be some tiering in there. There might be some committees that need a real time period to have a really close look.
The third piece is the impact of committee work. How do we know what is happening with the committee work? We know what happens with bills, but what about the studies? What is the impact we’re having? Where are our recommendations going? How can we make sure we are making a solid impact?
I’m looking at those three areas. We have talked about science and technology, and I would say innovation is as important. That doesn’t mean the same thing as science and tech. There are probably conversations around the table that make sense. I’m going to come back to that particular area for something to listen back to my colleagues, and I’ve gone around in circles on it.
With technology, are we becoming too hung up on it being in one specific mandate of one committee? When we look and are moving forward and just trying to reach around the bend, we know that any topic could be covered in a variety of committees related to technology. Senator Duncan has already talked about the EV transport area. Social Affairs, even without technology in it, could look at revolutions in health care. Banking could be looking at cybercrime. Those are all technology pieces. I don’t believe any committee would be untouched by this. I wonder, does it need to be a specific committee mandate if we have that mindset? That would be my question to our guests.
Senator Omidvar: If I may respond, Senator Deacon, that is an excellent observation.
As I remarked earlier, we can’t really expect complete purity, but I think one of the reasons science and technology are together — and maybe they should not be or they should be — is that developments in science are then applied in many ways, and those applications result, one way or another, in new forms of technology. That is why they are grouped together, but that does not mean that technology is not an underlying aspect of the work that maybe all committees do. I think of agriculture, and technology has a huge impact on agriculture.
I cannot remember, as I said, the last time we did a study focusing on innovation and technology. That would be a great study to do. What are the expected innovations and technology that would impact our society in Canada, whether it’s in agriculture or banking, or whatever it may be?
I do think, though, colleagues — and this is for all the members of the Rules Committee — that you’re doing important, institution-building work. I don’t think it’s possible for you to reach for perfection. There’s no perfection in all of this. If I may be bold enough to recommend this, reach for what is possible. Continue to do the overarching “boiling the ocean” of what committees are, but in the meantime, there are pressing issues. I cannot underline enough the importance of creating a human capital committee. It’s simply not understandable that, in a country like ours where we are going begging for labour, where we can’t find people to work, that we actually do not have a standing Senate committee on human capital. That would include aspects of education as well. Let’s remember that feeds into it as well. I would say there are things in your reach immediately, or more immediately. The word “immediate” in the Senate always means different things to normal people than it does to us, but I don’t think doing an overview of the entire Senate committees and then parsing it all out — my goodness, that will likely take you three to four years.
Senator Dawson: Think of the history behind some committees. Take the example of Transport and Communications, one of the oldest committees in the Senate, obviously. The Transport Committee was created when we created the railway lines. Since we gave the railway lines the mandate to build the telegraph structure, the companies that owned the railways also owned the telegraph in those days. We have kept that as a marriage even though the train companies don’t own the telecommunications anymore. That’s where it happened. It wasn’t a very big study. The Rules Committee of that time did not study and say, “Oh, let’s do telecom and transport together.” A lot of these just happened, like somebody said before, by just nature. There is an easy way to change these.
Senator Housakos: Very quickly, there are two issues here. Number one is the various fits of committees. We can debate that forever and ever, and there’s no wrong or right fit when it comes to how we want to combine them.
The real issue here is how we are going to alleviate the pressure from Social Affairs. I totally agree with Senator Omidvar that Social Affairs is becoming more and more prevalent, and it needs to expand its mandate into all aspects of human resources. The question is how we do that and alleviate the pressures right now. The problem is there are too many private members’ bills. A possible solution, as Senator Dawson said, is for leadership, for all practical purposes, to start diverting some of these bills to other committees. I don’t know what the answer is, but it seems to me the number one problem to solve is the overload on Social Affairs.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much, Senators Omidvar, Dawson and Housakos. I think you’ve created a great atmosphere for a lot of discussion.
I agree with you, Senator Omidvar. As the saying goes, don’t let perfection get in the way of making things better, and we have to be mindful of that. There’s no perfect solution to this. We know that from the discussion we’ve heard already.
In the short term, maybe we can be a little bit more judicious in referring private members’ bills and not saying that the majority of them have to go to Social if they could fit in with other committees. That would be a very quick job that we can do, but we’d have to make sure that everybody is in agreement with it so we don’t have major discussions on the floor of the Senate.
Earlier, I think it was Senator Wells who talked about it seeming to be patchwork, asking how we are going to pull it all together. I guess that’s what we’ll have to do, but I don’t think we can do it in two or three meetings. I think we have to look at the logistics of committee meetings for a starter, because we have to be realistic. We can make changes, but we also have to be realistic about the parameters we have in place. Will those logistics change in September once COVID is over, if it’s ever over?
An example would be I did not like Monday meetings before, but now when I can have a Monday meeting at home before I head to the airport, I’m really glad because that’s one of my committee meetings finished before I even get to Ottawa. The same thing with Fridays. If I can fly home Thursday night and have a committee meeting Friday at my home, that makes it a bit easier. Maybe we can look at allowing committees to sit through hybrid. It’s a technology that we have. We can’t be afraid of technology, so let’s use it in the best possible way.
Senator Wells also spoke about three new committees, Audit and Oversight, MAID and the Emergencies Act committees. You think when you go on them that they will be short term, but the MAID Committee is already extended to at least September, I forget exactly what the date was. A lot of these same members were dealing with MAID legislation at an earlier time. You took it thinking it was going to be short term, and here you’re still doing it. Defence was just the Defence Committee, and that was a fairly new committee that started after I came to the Senate, and now we have a Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs, so again, that takes more resources.
When new committees are recommended, you tend to think, when you’re voting in favour of it, well, yeah, it sounds really good, but I think we all have a responsibility to educate ourselves on the logistics and what is possible before we allow new committees to be established. I know it’s very difficult to say no to a colleague who thinks a new committee would be a great idea, but we really have to look at the pros and cons and how it will change the committees we have set up. What can we take from SOCI? Where can we put it? Do we need a new committee? We’ve heard from two former chairs of Transport and Communications that while their mandate is busy with transport and communications, that it’s very doable.
We really have to examine a lot before we start adding committees. I’m one of the people who recommended two new committees, but in listening to all of the discussion that’s taking place, I think that we have to move judiciously. I’m not saying slow down at all, but I’m saying that we really have to look at things carefully and make sure that we have the resources available before we move forward. Will we be having still just one committee meeting a week in September, or will we be back to what we were pre-COVID? That’s what we don’t know. There are variables in making these decisions.
That was not a question, but more comments, chair.
Senator Batters: Senator Cordy was talking about how she’s able to have committee meetings on Monday morning or Friday, and that actually works out okay for her travel. For those of us in the West, our travel actually makes it almost impossible to have committee meetings on Monday or Friday because that’s the only time we have to be able to take those lengthy flights to Ottawa that almost always have to go through Toronto.
I just wanted to again emphasize that when we’re talking about logistics, one of the most important logistics we have, which Senator Wells touched upon, is the ability of senators to do our best work. Adding committees could impede that, especially for those of us in small groups. We’re certainly wanting to work hard, and we do, but to have just a small group of 14 or 16 senators and have more than that number of committees, that means that everyone needs to be on potentially more committees than they’re actually able to handle and do a really good job at the committees they’re on.
I also want to state that we can’t really underestimate how much COVID has cost our committees. In normal times, there are many committees that are technically slotted to sit twice a week for two-hour slots each but almost always only sit once a week. The Social Affairs Committee, Transport and Communications Committee as well as the Legal Committee are three I know of that nearly always sat those two times a week because there was always so much work to do that they had no problem ever filling that time frame, and sometimes they had to meet even more than that. During COVID, all of those committees have been relegated, in almost all occasions, to only once a week, yet the work hasn’t stopped coming in. The work has been similar. There have been some bills that have been handled just through Committees of the Whole in the house rather than being sent to a committee to study, but for the most part, those committees have had almost the same amount of work, yet have been relegated to just one two-hour slot a week compared to two.
I was wondering if either Senator Housakos or Senator Dawson would be able to comment on that part of it.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Batters.
Please be quick, as the list of speakers is getting longer. Senator Dawson or Housakos, do you want to answer Senator Batters’ question?
Otherwise, we will come back to it in the discussions that will follow with the speakers we have with us, if that is okay with you.
[English]
Senator Busson: I’ve been riveted by the comments and experience of my colleagues dealing with a very difficult problem. The work that has been done around committees in the past has been extensive, and it’s like trying to fix an airplane when it’s in the air. This airplane, being the Senate, has to remain vibrant and safe and an essential part of the work we do. The committee work, as we all know, is one of the most important parts of the Senate.
From my perspective, I listened very intently to some of the comments of, specifically, Senator Dawson and Senator Housakos around the human resource committee and, of course, Senator Omidvar, and I think we are having two different conversations. One is whether or not we can reset the definition of some of the committee work to make it less overwhelming for certain committees, specifically SOCI, and whether Transport and Communications has enough to do if we reset the definition there. Then there’s another whole conversation regarding the gap in the work that we need to do around human resources. There’s actually a vacuum that nobody is really occupying space in, and that’s around human resources and human capital. When Senator Housakos was replying to my question, he said — and I don’t think there’s much disagreement — that he does not disagree that human resources is an important topic that is not covered. Not to put words in Senator Housakos’ reply to me, but I think there really is a gap that most of us agree exists in the human resource conversation and the work we do in committee.
I guess I’m commenting rather than asking a question, much like Senator Cordy did, but I hope everyone can think about that as we move forward in at least addressing the gap that is so important to move forward in the future of our country and the work that we address through our committees to deal with that evolution. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: That is a very important comment you are making, Senator Busson and others. We have pressing needs, but we also have problematic situations that are persisting over the medium and long terms, and we have to work on both sides.
Senator Saint-Germain: I want to begin by recognizing the committee members’ work. I will be very careful because, since I am not familiar with all of the context, as I am replacing a colleague this morning, I would not want to make comments that may not be well researched.
I recognize the relevance of reviewing committee mandates based on issues related to contemporary matters that are the subject of legislation and of Canadians’ concerns. That said, I note that, in the House of Commons, including the four joint committees, there are 31 committees for 338 members — and they are generally 338 or very close to that number — while in the Senate, including the four joint committees — and I am not talking about special committees — we have 22 committees for 105 members. What is more, we are generally fewer than 100 senators.
My concern and my question have to do with the following. Is it realistic to add two committees without merging committees or even, in some cases, abolishing certain committees without reviewing the schedules in a way that would confirm that some committees will have very little time to meet?
Here is my question. If two committees were added — without both reducing the number of committees and tightening up schedules — how will we manage to do this work given the current configuration of the Senate?
The Chair: Senator Saint-Germain, my understanding is that your question is for all the members of the committee.
Unless someone would like to comment, I think this is a question we will have to think about. I think there may also be, in the equation you raised, the issue of the number of members per committee.
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes.
The Chair: In general, committees have 12 members each. Some committees have nine members. This one, like CIBA, has 15 members, and I understand why, as this is a committee that discusses our rules and procedures. The same goes for CIBA.
All those factors are part of the equation, and we will have to discuss them eventually, of course.
[English]
Senator Omidvar: If I can make a brief comment on that, I just want to remind us that, not in this Parliament but the one previous to that, we had two special committees: the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic and the Special Senate Committee on the Charitable Sector. They were populated with, I believe, five or six senators, and they did stellar work. It tells me that the Senate is capable of stretching quite a bit within the current constraints that Senator Saint-Germain has mentioned.
The Chair: Thank you. Very useful, Senator Omidvar.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: I would just like to say that, as far as I am concerned, owing to the way the four current groups are configured, we should also review the number of members, but if we get dispersed in more committees, sub-committees, joint committees and special committees, we won’t manage it.
I think some groundwork should be done to review the whole committee and mandate logic. That was the point of my question, as I was wondering whether the committee has gone that far. I completely understand that this is part of future considerations.
The Chair: Exactly. Thank you very much.
[English]
Senator Lankin: I thank all the committee members and witnesses for their contribution to the discussion.
I’m starting to think about how we chunk these pieces of work, because I feel the cyclical argument starting that has frustrated us for a few years in terms of making progress.
I think one of the issues that Senator Batters raised, which is critically important, is for us to think about the fact that in today’s Senate, we have four groups, and there are varying numbers, and the ability to staff or service members on a number of committees is limited. We are doing more individually because of vacancies. One of the things I think we should weigh in discussing this is the timeliness of appointments. That’s an issue. Secondly, I think we really should take a look at the number of senators per committee. It’s not necessary to have 15 senators on a number of committees. It’s not even necessary to have 12.
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Lankin: A smaller group could do an effective job, so I think we have to look at that.
We have some immediate bottlenecks and an immediate void in terms of the conversation that we’ve had around labour market, human capital and the bottleneck at SOCI. I’m one who still thinks it probably makes sense to take a step while we’re doing the bigger review, because the bigger review, as Senator Cordy said, could take three years or so to do. I don’t think that’s unreasonable or pessimistic in its estimation.
I think there are pieces of this, like I said earlier, that Senator Massicotte will remind us about, in terms of how to contain the work around public bills, and there’s a piece of that that could make a difference right now.
I’d like us as a committee to — perhaps, the steering committee — over the next couple of weeks think about how to cascade a series of decisions and whether we should take them in this order, but provide an organizational suggestion to bring to the committee to help us move forward. Because I do fear the cyclical situation of we can’t do that until we do this, and we can’t do this until we do that, and we may not make progress, and that’s why it hasn’t happened for a long time. Perhaps that’s a piece of work that we can do, Madam Chair, at steering committee that might help the committee decide how to take a few steps forward on this.
I also agree with Senator Batters’ request for the statistics around the kind of work that has been done at all the committees in terms of bills, studies and the number of meetings per week. Some of it is COVID-prescribed, but even before that, there were some committees that had two spots that never used two spots, so a little bit of a review pre-COVID and during COVID of the statistics would be helpful to have in our back pocket as we pursue this conversation.
Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you. Very useful, Senator Lankin.
Senator Duncan: Thank you very much to everyone in attendance today, particularly our witnesses.
I’d just like to make two comments, and one is regarding the value of committee work of, in particular, as Senator Omidvar mentioned, the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. That report has been extensively used at the Council of the Federation or the premiers’ conferences. It’s been particularly important.
In that regard, I just want to also reference — forgive me, Senator Mockler, if I’m treading on your turf — the value of the National Finance Committee. In 2019 — I go back to that — when we were in full operation, the National Finance Committee spent seven hours studying the budget that was passed in 20 minutes in the House of Commons. Senator Day is the one who referenced that in the chamber. The value of that work to Canadians is incredibly important.
In regard to the number of committee members on National Finance, we are at the moment sadly lacking regional representation, and that’s also an issue in terms of number of members. I think we have to consider the committee’s mandate and regional representation as well. I wanted to add those two points.
The Chair: Very important, Senator Duncan. You’re absolutely right.
Senator Omidvar: I wanted to make a point as you are reviewing the matter of dealing with public bills. I came across a tiny bit of history in the Senate that may be interesting. When Senator Ogilvie was chair of Social, Social did get a number of public bills. He had a practice — whether formal or informal, I don’t know — that no amendments on public bills would be discussed at committee. They would all be tabled in the Senate Chamber. When I look back at that time, a considerable number of studies were done at SOCI dealing with pharmaceuticals. Maybe the clerk could research that a bit. I’m not sure that would be tolerated today, but it was an interesting strategy then.
The Chair: I have a question for the leaders that are participating in our meeting today and for Senator Housakos, who was in the leadership, and Senator Wells also on the Conservative side. From the Canadian Senators Group, Senator Black is here also and may want to intervene.
We have looked at the need we feel for having committee mandates take care of human capital. We’ve been discussing Transport and Communications perhaps lacking substance if we take out communication, so we may add innovation there. Maybe we should make some short-term changes. For instance, we could think of subcommittees at SOCI. There are many things we can think of looking at the numbers. As Senator Lankin said, we have a lot of questions that we need to take away, and the steering committee will tackle them and introduce them later on in a new committee meeting.
For those who have the difficult task of picking the members to sit on those different committees, is it equally easy to fill membership in committees? In other words, are there any committees that nobody wants to sit on, that there is no interest in? What is the picture on this side of the equation? How do you assign people to the committees according to preferences? I know that’s not the demand side of the fact, but it’s a supply side question that is legitimate in our consideration.
Senator Black: From our standpoint, there are more difficult committees to fill, absolutely. There have been times when the Canadian Senators Group has not filled committee members. They are used to interest new CSG members potentially, or we fill them as we can going forward, but there are difficulties in some cases. Thanks.
The Chair: Can you provide us with the names of those committees, or would you prefer not to?
Senator Black: I would hold off on that.
Senator Housakos: From my experience, the issue is there have been too many people interested in too many committees. As we’ve seen in the last few years, we’ve increased the size of senators’ participation on just about every committee. I don’t think that is the problem. I think the changing nature of the Senate is calling for new structure and new approaches. Many more themes warrant consideration. Probably due to social media, many more items are catching the attention of public discourse than 10 or 15 years ago. That’s the answer to your question from my perspective, chair.
I do highlight, though, that as usual, Senator Saint-Germain hit the nail on the head. Before we consider any structural changes, we need to really look at all the various factors and impacts. At the end of the day, it is a question of efficiency, and more doesn’t always make us more efficient.
Senator Wells: Similar to what Senator Black said, sometimes there’s a great demand for specific committee slots and sometimes not so much. A lot depends on the size of the group or caucus. I remember when the Conservatives had a lot, people wanted to sit on Foreign Affairs, Defence and CIBA, and less so some others. Still, that’s not a problem that has any solution. As Senator Black said, sometimes there’s gentle coercion methods that can be used.
This comment really stems from some of the work that this committee did a couple of weeks ago on the committee mandates and the names. I call this committee “Rules,” even though it has a longer name. I call the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee “Legal.” I call the Standing Committee on Audit and Oversight “Audit.” So we have short names. I have been in the Senate for over nine years. I really didn’t think about committee mandates at all — at all. I just knew the name of the committee and where the bill or the study should rest, and I think that will continue. I really do. We’ll fit things in where there’s space or where it’s necessary. I think I mentioned at an earlier committee meeting that when we looked at the sports betting bill, it could have gone to a number of places but Banking had some space in their calendar and so that’s where it went, and I think that will continue regardless of the name or the mandate of the committee. That’s really all I wanted to say on that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Wells.
[Translation]
What I can point out is that major titles are not appearing, as it has been said. For example, economy and human resources are important topics that we are not seeing.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: Madam Chair, I concur with your last comments. Some contemporary issues and broader names would be a good addition to our committees.
To your question, within the ISG, expertise, interest, and opportunities, meaning the number of seats we have on the various committees, are the criteria for allocating the seats. When we have more requests than seats, then seniority is the main criteria in order to allocate the seats.
Your question with regard to let’s say the less popular committees is pretty tricky because that does not mean that those committees are not important. The issue is that there is less interest and I would say less expertise with those committees. We need to address this. It’s often a matter of appointments, but it is also very important to promote the work that those committees are doing.
My last point is that when you come with a proposal, I don’t believe that you can do this in a way that would tackle only some parts of the main issues that we have in front of us. Not all solutions are complex to implement. This morning I listened to many interesting recommendations. One of those — and it is a very easy one when we have the next negotiations on committees — is to lower the number of members on each committee. Many solutions are on the table, and I trust that you are all very skilled and we will be able to find solutions without having all the committees and the organization being tilted by some proposals that would not be prudent enough.
The Chair: That is a nice suggestion. Maybe some members here recall that there was a discussion in the past in this committee. I was not a senator at that time, but reading some of the documents, the proposition was to have membership in committees be flexible and to have flexibility in the Rules so that a committee could be from six to twelve members, for instance. We could deal with that kind of rule at some point in time.
Senator Ringuette: I really appreciate the discussion this morning. I’m not on steering, but from my perspective here, I do see that there is a consensus. There is a consensus that we need to do a complete review of the committees and the number of members on those committees. For instance, I see Senator Mockler at National Finance. That committee has so much work, yet in our normal time they only have two sitting times. Is that adequate? I don’t believe so. I don’t believe that it is. You may have some Senate committee that could do with maybe just one three-hour meeting.
The fact is there are two things. There is an immediate response that we need to do and that is in the creation of a human capital committee. We are 10 years behind. That’s number one.
Number two, we need to stop delaying the inevitable. We know that we need to do a full review, so let’s start. We can’t say, oh well, it takes too much time, we don’t have time and so on and so forth. Let’s start. At least the work that will be done will have been done.
I’ve been part of Rules for years. I find that we have kind of neglected putting a modern road to how we operate and how we can help our committees function in a better way, in a more efficient way, realizing that we have National Finance, SOCI and Legal that are overburdened in comparison to the rest.
These are my comments. I rest my case. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Mockler: I think the comments that have been made deserve attention and should make us think more about the approach we want to give the Senate, be it in terms of modernization or changes.
[English]
A document was circulated to us on the number of hours and witnesses of all the committees that we’ve had. I want to reiterate and also again support Senator Duncan when she talks about the load of the Finance Committee. Especially also, let us be mindful of regional representation from coast to coast to coast. I can share with you, yes, I’ve had some people say they would like to be on Finance, but it is too many hours of work. I want to bring that to your attention, Madam Chair.
When we look at subject matters, all subject matters of any government regardless of who forms the government, the budget process given to Finance, and especially when we look at deadlines, which are very important, I think that a lot more division should be given to other committees to do proper studies, and then tabling it like we have done just lately with the budget. Having many committees receive studies or sections of budget would alleviate and help Finance table their reports. I think about what Senator Gignac and Senator Marshall did — and Senator Marshall has been doing it since I’ve seen her in Finance — about performance indicators. At the end of the day, regardless of the studies we have about the mandates that we have in committees in the Senate, it’s all about transparency, accountability, predictability and reliability that will impact on the governance of the budget going forward.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Mockler.
I think this concludes our work for today. Concerning the comments many have made, I promise that we will provide a summary of debates we have held today over the coming weeks. That summary will include what we, in the steering committee, felt was the consensus established today. We could decide what will come next in committee at our upcoming meetings.
On that, I conclude our public meeting and ask the members of the steering committee to remain online.
Of course, I would like to thank Senator Omidvar, as well as Senators Dawson and Housakos. Thank you so much for your precious comments. Thank you very much and have a great day.
(The committee adjourned.)